it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
@John_Mann - please explain the difference between scientific evidence and physical evidence.
Scientific evidence is a physical evidence that can be replicated/repeated any time by will by anyone if following the same conditions that produced the physical evidence.
Life is a physical evidence but (until now) it cannot be replicated.
Repeatability is the difference between scientific evidence and physical evidence.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
I don't think the suffix "ism" is pejorative in itself. It just implies a system of thought.
Dogma is just an axiom in a religious context. The term axiom is most used in mathematics. In logic an axiom usually is known as premise.
An axiom is a statement taken to be true through pure faith. It's a self evident truth.
At the end of the day axiom, dogma and premise are the same thing.
Scientific method is built upon several axioms.
meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .
he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .
that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .
he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .
that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .
he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .
that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
I make no restrictions on what sort of evidence I will consider.
I think you're very biased to only accept scientific evidence.
I don't think you would accept physical evidence or testimonial evidence for instance.
I'd presented even logical proof to you about the existence of God in St. Anselm's ontological argument.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
On this thread you have alternated bizarrely between saying you are unaware of any real knowledge outside science (and could anyone point it out) and insisting that you accept other kinds of knowledge and anyone who says otherwise is misrepresenting you. So which is it?
Yes.This is very strange.
I'm really trying to understand Cofty's worldview but it's very difficult when he keeps flip-flopping.
He seems to confuse scientific evidence and physical evidence too.
Also I don't know why he insists writing scientism in quotemarks implying scientism itself is an invented or invalid term.
Actually scientism is very well defined by great philosophers of science like Popper and Putnam for instance.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
So far we agree these sources of knowledges are not science (scientific method):
Philosophy (being the universal tool of knowledge).
Heuristic
History
Music/art
Law
Politics
Mathematics
Psychology
All these areas of knowledge work without scientific evidence.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
The logical conclusion of scientism is what can't be submitted to scientific method can't exist at all.
That's why followers of Scientism deny the existence of God and even consciousness.
To scientism consciousness is just another illusion and nothing more than a bunch of cheap tricks.
